Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="77IM" data-source="post: 4630662" data-attributes="member: 12377">The conclusion, "The tank will only ever take a hit when it is worse for the party for him to do so," is very much correct.  But, the logical leap to "the tank is an impossibly paradoxical role" overlooks the fact that the overall situation is better for the party.  In fact, it's really excellent tactics to "trick" a desperate and foolish monster into attacking the rogue while marked by the fighter, precisely as your conclusion predicts!Here is a matrix display of all possible monster-defender-striker interactions:MARK STATUS + MONSTER ACTION = OUTCOMEA1) No mark + monster attacks defender = defender takes regular monster damageA2) No mark + monster attacks striker = striker takes regular monster damageB1) Monster marked + monster attacks defender = defender takes regular monster damageB2) Monster marked + monster attacks striker = striker takes reduced monster damage and monster takes some defender damageA perfectly rational monster regards A2 as strictly better than A1, because the striker deals more damage and drops faster, so we can eliminate A1 as a possibility (the perfectly rational monster won't ever take it).  But marking takes away both choices.  The OP claims that there is an equilibrium between B1 and B2; the rational monster can calculate whether the extra damage he suffers in B2 is worth getting a penalized hit on the striker, versus choosing B1 and just whittling down the defender.  I agree with this claim.But the further claim -- the fact that the monster can choose between B1 and B2 makes the defender role impossibly paradoxical -- I disagree with.  I assert that both B1 and B2 are better than A2, the choice the monster would have made if he were not marked.The role system is intended to let each role contribute to the fight equally, but differently.  The defender's way of being different is that he can contribute by deliberately soaking hits.  Therefore, the defender role is functioning as intended:  he will take some hits (when the monster decides B1 is better) and mangle some monsters (when the monster decides B2 is better), and overall improve the party's odds in a way that is different from other roles.The point of the role system is to increase tactical options.  If the monster was facing, say, two identical strikers, it wouldn't matter which one he attacked (as long as he stuck to the same one).  The presence of the tank forces the monster to weigh his tactical options (attack the fighter and accomplish little, or attack the dangerous striker and possibly get whacked myself...). -- 77IM</blockquote>

Verification